Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
TunnelBear VPN
Productivity and Utilities
App
TunnelBear VPN is a free, incredibly simple app to browse the Internet privately and securely. ...
SpeakText (Speak & Translate Text/Web)
Business and Reference
App
SpeakText - Speak & Translate Text Documents and Web pages Touch text documents and web pages,...
Toca Birthday Party
Education and Entertainment
App
"Another fun app from Toca Boca. If your kids like playing birthday parties (and whose don’t) then...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Saltburn (2023) in Movies
Dec 29, 2023
Interesting...Intriguing...and Dark
Actress/Writer/Director Emerald Fennell is turning into an artistic voice that bears noticing and with SALTBURN - her follow-up to PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN (the film that won her the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) - Fennell’s artistic voice is in full bloom.
Starring Barry Keoghan (Oscar nominated for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN), SALTBURN tells the story of an Oxford student who befriends the rich, cool kid (Jacob Elordi, EUPHORIA) who invites him back to his family compound, SALTBURN, for the summer with his eccentric (to say the least) family.
As written and directed by Fennell, SALTBURN is a satire on the elite rich, showing them in their extravagant, quirky isolation in their compound, looking down on the common folk from their piles of money (or…in some cases…oblivious of the common folk because of their money) while peeling back the layers to show the unhappiness and manipulation underneath.
Fennell layers this story richly, slowly folding back facades and layers to show the ugliness of inherently unhappy people who cover their unhappiness up with wealth, money and parties.
Into this world comes Oliver Quick (Keoghan) who is the audiences’ conduit into this level of living - and who has secrets of his own.
Keoghan is interesting to watch (as always) and the family…Elordi, Sadie Soverall (his sister) and Archie Madekwe (another outsider who is jealous of Oliver’s appearance) all are good looking, good enough performers who live the hedonistic lifestyle and deny the consequences and responsibilities thereof.
When a film needs an “ice queen” as the matriarch of a family, Rosamund Pike is, inevitably, brought in and she brings the goods to Saltburn. She is perfectly cast as the mother of the family who says what she thinks, does not show what she is feeling and doesn’t give a darn about anyone else. She is suitably balanced by the off-balanced, quirky performance of the always good Richard E. Grant as the patriarch of the family who is (usually) lost in his own little world of whatever fantasy he is currently involved in.
But if this was just a film about a quirky family, it would be a fun, interesting romp. But…in Fennell’s hands, it becomes something much more sinister - and much more interesting - to watch.
Saltburn is a film that one must sit with after watching to digest what was just witnessed, but…ultimately…is one that is very interesting….and intriguing…and dark.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Barry Keoghan (Oscar nominated for THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN), SALTBURN tells the story of an Oxford student who befriends the rich, cool kid (Jacob Elordi, EUPHORIA) who invites him back to his family compound, SALTBURN, for the summer with his eccentric (to say the least) family.
As written and directed by Fennell, SALTBURN is a satire on the elite rich, showing them in their extravagant, quirky isolation in their compound, looking down on the common folk from their piles of money (or…in some cases…oblivious of the common folk because of their money) while peeling back the layers to show the unhappiness and manipulation underneath.
Fennell layers this story richly, slowly folding back facades and layers to show the ugliness of inherently unhappy people who cover their unhappiness up with wealth, money and parties.
Into this world comes Oliver Quick (Keoghan) who is the audiences’ conduit into this level of living - and who has secrets of his own.
Keoghan is interesting to watch (as always) and the family…Elordi, Sadie Soverall (his sister) and Archie Madekwe (another outsider who is jealous of Oliver’s appearance) all are good looking, good enough performers who live the hedonistic lifestyle and deny the consequences and responsibilities thereof.
When a film needs an “ice queen” as the matriarch of a family, Rosamund Pike is, inevitably, brought in and she brings the goods to Saltburn. She is perfectly cast as the mother of the family who says what she thinks, does not show what she is feeling and doesn’t give a darn about anyone else. She is suitably balanced by the off-balanced, quirky performance of the always good Richard E. Grant as the patriarch of the family who is (usually) lost in his own little world of whatever fantasy he is currently involved in.
But if this was just a film about a quirky family, it would be a fun, interesting romp. But…in Fennell’s hands, it becomes something much more sinister - and much more interesting - to watch.
Saltburn is a film that one must sit with after watching to digest what was just witnessed, but…ultimately…is one that is very interesting….and intriguing…and dark.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Mr. Nobody in Books
Mar 19, 2020
Emma Lewis is neuropsychiatrist, who is surprised when she's asked to work on a case for a newsworthy patient. Dubbed "Mr. Nobody," he's a man found on a British beach, in wet clothes and without any identification. He won't speak and the hospital staff are all drawn to him. But for Emma to take the case, it means returning to a place that she left fourteen years ago in disgrace--a place she's worked to leave behind and erase any signs of herself from.
"Why can't I remember? Why can't I remember my name? The weight of what this means bears down on him with each cold snatched breath he takes. Fear pumping through him, primal and quickening. Oh God. It's all gone. His world shrinks to a pinhead and then dilates so wide, suddenly terrifyingly borderless."
This book started out like gangbusters. Alternating between Emma and Mr. Nobody, whom the hospital staff quickly dubs Matthew, I was drawn in immediately. Who on earth is Matthew, why can't he remember who he is, and what is his deal? But there were a few issues. Emma clearly has a backstory. Yes, something happened to her fourteen years ago. To me, this is the equivalent of "vaguebooking"--you know when someone posts something on Facebook or social media: "Something horrible has happened. Oh woe is me." And then all their friends have to either guess, or say "Oh I'm so sorry," but the poster never actually tells you what happened? I'm sorry, but in books, after a while, dragging this all out is too much. Just freaking tell us what happened to you, Emma, or stop alluding to it!
So Emma and Matthew, of course, surpass patient/doctor boundaries, finding each other fascinating. There are, accordingly, twists in the book. Some, I will hand it to Steadman, are pretty darn good. Much of the book is quite readable and moves at a good pace--Emma's allusions to her past not withstanding. It's certainly intriguing. There are some interesting side characters: a local police officer and his nosy reporter wife; a benevolent nurse, etc. Emma's kind and patient brother.
But then the ending and biggest reveal comes along and eh. I found it a little anticlimactic. After all we've been through together, Emma?! I don't know. I was hoping for more, especially after all the fuss about Something in the Water, which I still haven't read. (I know, I know. It's on my TBR.)
So, in the end, this is an intriguing one. The plot is definitely original, I'll give you that. But throw in a slightly irritating main character and a somewhat disappointing ending and it was a 3.5 star read for me-just barely.
"Why can't I remember? Why can't I remember my name? The weight of what this means bears down on him with each cold snatched breath he takes. Fear pumping through him, primal and quickening. Oh God. It's all gone. His world shrinks to a pinhead and then dilates so wide, suddenly terrifyingly borderless."
This book started out like gangbusters. Alternating between Emma and Mr. Nobody, whom the hospital staff quickly dubs Matthew, I was drawn in immediately. Who on earth is Matthew, why can't he remember who he is, and what is his deal? But there were a few issues. Emma clearly has a backstory. Yes, something happened to her fourteen years ago. To me, this is the equivalent of "vaguebooking"--you know when someone posts something on Facebook or social media: "Something horrible has happened. Oh woe is me." And then all their friends have to either guess, or say "Oh I'm so sorry," but the poster never actually tells you what happened? I'm sorry, but in books, after a while, dragging this all out is too much. Just freaking tell us what happened to you, Emma, or stop alluding to it!
So Emma and Matthew, of course, surpass patient/doctor boundaries, finding each other fascinating. There are, accordingly, twists in the book. Some, I will hand it to Steadman, are pretty darn good. Much of the book is quite readable and moves at a good pace--Emma's allusions to her past not withstanding. It's certainly intriguing. There are some interesting side characters: a local police officer and his nosy reporter wife; a benevolent nurse, etc. Emma's kind and patient brother.
But then the ending and biggest reveal comes along and eh. I found it a little anticlimactic. After all we've been through together, Emma?! I don't know. I was hoping for more, especially after all the fuss about Something in the Water, which I still haven't read. (I know, I know. It's on my TBR.)
So, in the end, this is an intriguing one. The plot is definitely original, I'll give you that. But throw in a slightly irritating main character and a somewhat disappointing ending and it was a 3.5 star read for me-just barely.
London Underground by Design
Book
London Underground By Design is the beautifully illustrated new book from Mark Ovenden, the...
Svalbard (Spitsbergen): With Franz Josef Land and Jan Mayen
Roger Norum and Andreas Umbreit
Book
The Bradt guide to Svalbard (Spitsbergen), including Franz Josef Land and Jan Mayen, is a unique,...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Just when it seemed that these movies were getting slightly better each time, along comes Afterlife to extinguish whatever tiny flame of hope was still flickering.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
JT (287 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 6, 2021
The opening of The Little Things promises a lot but ultimately the tension that is driven during the first ten minutes is nowhere to be seen for the rest of the run time.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
